Morin v. State
This text of 984 So. 2d 676 (Morin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Michael MORIN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and David S. Morgan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carlos A. Ivanor, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Michael Morin appeals from his convictions for first degree murder and burglary of a dwelling with battery, arguing that admissions he made to police, which were introduced during his trial, were obtained in violation of his Miranda[1] rights. We do not reach this issue, because we find that any error in the introduction of Morin's admission to police was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the evidence of his motive and opportunity to commit the crimes; the introduction into evidence of Morin's taped admission to his father; physical evidence pointing to Morin as the perpetrator (including spatters of the victim's blood found on the shorts that Morin was wearing when he was apprehended); and other evidence of Morin's guilt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).
AFFIRMED.
PALMER, C.J., LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
NOTES
[1] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
984 So. 2d 676, 2008 WL 2605099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morin-v-state-fladistctapp-2008.